什么逻辑啊？关门的人不是制定规则的人，没有

they can't control the behavior of the thief. i.e., the thief is not a subordinate of the owner. They are two independant entities. How can the owner be resonsible for the behavior of the thief? Your example bears 0 similarity to the olympic case, in which BWF has full authority over the athletes, their rules regulate what the athletes must do. It is due to the error in their rules, the athletes had no way to perform well (see my other post, under their rule, no matter what the athletes do, they will have difficulties to explain their behavior.). Therefore the responsibility falls on the regulators, not the participants.